World: No Regrets?

No, it's not the Billie Holliday song. It's what's happening in the trials of the Khmer Rouge criminals right now.

Prisoner at Tuol Sleng, Pol Pot's notorious S-21 prison

No, my knowledge of Kampuchean history is not great. I know something about the early history of the Khmer and other peoples of that part of Southeast Asia, the Funanese empire, the Dong Son bronzes, but almost nothing about their modern history, except that my parents greatly respected and admired Prince Norodom Sihanouk.

I am about to begin my historical explorations of that deeply wretched nation.

However, today's report from Reuters does not bode well for my virtual travels thereto. According to Reuters, one Mam Nay, aka Chan, who served for a time as an interrogator under Pol Pot's head jailor, Duch (real name Kaing Guek Eav) testified in court today that he has no regrets for

what happened at the Tuol Sleng prison, where more than 14,000 men, women and children were killed, [...].

Tuol Sleng, also known as S-21, is the infamous prison referred to in "The Killing Fields."

No regrets for this, Mr. Chan? Or Mam Nay, if you prefer?

Tortured Prisoner, one of 6,000 photographs left behind when Khmer Rouge jailors evicted Tuol Sleng prison in advance of invading VietNamese troops

Mam Nay, who is appearing as a witness for the prosecution in the joint Kampuchean-UN war crimes trials, has denied any part in torture or killings of prisoners and blamed the United States and Vietnam for undermining his country.

"My only regret was our country was invaded," he told the joint Cambodian-U.N. tribunal. "Frankly speaking, the Americans invaded us then Vietnam invaded us. That is my regret."

[...]

"I did not use torture in my interrogation. I believed I would not get a true confession."

Asked about the deaths of innocent people, Nay, 76, said: "None of them was innocent -- those people committed offences, either minor or serious.

"This was the reason for their arrest. How serious or how minor, I don't know."

Note: This guy was a schoolteacher. Maybe he was a brainwashed cadre turned schoolteacher. But how do you become a schoolteacher if you cannot empathize with frightened children? And some of the 14-20,000 imprisoned at Tuol Sleng were children. Ony six people survived that prison. The remaining 13,994 — or 19,994, no one really knows — died as a result of torture.

There is no denying that the US bombing of Kampuchea and various associated military actions led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge. But who thought they would be so inhumane as to kill between 1 and 3 million of their own people? Between the U.S. bombing and the NVA attempts to escape U.S. military actions by slipping over the border into Kampuchean territory, evicting Kampucheans, and training members of the Khmer Rouge, Kampuchea's attempts at neutrality and Sihanouk's heroic efforts in that direction were virtually worthless. Here is a brief background on these aspects of Kampuchean history.

Mam Nay, or Mr. Chan, or whatever you call yourself, should a "minor" offense warrant waterboarding? Or, as Americans and other Westerners used to refer to it, "Chinese" or "Japanese" water torture?

Picture taken by Jonah Blank in 2005 at the Tuol Sleng Museum. Published on the Web by David Corn.*

Oh, well. I guess now that it's come to light that we waterboarded mentally ill or innocent or possibly innocent people ourselves, repeatedly, I guess we're in no position to quibble about anyone else's crimes.

Ain't torture egalitarian?

*See here for copyright/licensing information on this picture.

Incidentally, the still-adored ex-partner made a trip to those parts some years ago, and opined that "the whole place seemed haunted. It was like going to a ghost town. Even the people's faces look haunted." The ex is a tough businessperson who has had plenty of occasion to mock and deride my own claims of sensitivity and queasiness and unexplained oojie-woojies, so to hear those words from such a person, well. Virtual trips to Kampuchea is all I'm up to for now.

Stumble It!

Memorial Day

It's the day to remember all those who served in their nation's military forces. We tend to blame soldiers for the crimes of war, but in reality, soldiers are drilled into obeying orders, mostly without thought. "I was only following orders" ceased to be a defense to charges of war crimes after World War II, when the victorious Allied nations tried their military counterparts of the Axis nations and put them to death for doing some of the same things we — or our nation's leaders, rather — are doing today. Waterboarding used to be called "Japanese" or "Chinese" "water-torture," an indication that our forebears knew quite well what it was and did not hesitate to call it by its proper name. What would they think of us, their descendants, and Dick Cheney's "enhanced interrogation"? Methinks they would weep for a nation that has so lost its moral compass.

To all the families of the soldiers who have died in service of their nation, thank you for your sacrifice. May you find peace. May we all find peace, and soon.

“War is just when it is necessary; arms are permissible when there is no hope except in arms.”

— Niccolo Machiavelli

Stumble It!

Now here is something encouraging for the New Year

Andrew Sullivan wrote a good article published today for the Times Online titled "The Torture Tape Fingering Bush As a War Criminal." Now unless there is more than one Andrew Sullivan running around, then Andrew is a libertarian conservative who has also written for Salon in the past and he nails Bush as a war criminal in this article. Andrew approaches the issue of the destroyed torture tapes from an angle I hadn't quite thought of. Mr. Sullivan asks:

"What are the odds that the CIA would have sought to destroy tapes that could prove it had legally prevented serious and dangerous attacks against innocent civilians? What are the odds that a president who had never authorised waterboarding would be unable to say whether such waterboarding was torture?"

There are some finer points in his article that I disagree with, such as calling Congresswoman Jane Harman, "the respected top Democrat."

Jane Harman is the woman who sponsored the thought crime bill, HR1955, the Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism act, an act as unAmerican as an act can be.

But it is encouraging to see commentators coming from somewhere other than where I sit coming out and calling Bush exactly what he is. A war criminal. Happy Holidays and hopefully happier times to come.

Stumble It!

High Crimes And Misdemeanors

Bush gives Gonzales the stinkeye as seen at Raw Story

Law professor and constitutional scholar Jonathon Turley said it: the White House's involvement in the decision to destroy tapes of CIA interrogations showing torture could constitute up to SIX crimes. Raw Story has the details.

There ya have it, folks. How much evidence of wrongdoing does the country (I'm looking at you, Nancy Pelosi) need? A criminal in the highest office of the land, and impeachment is "off the table"?

It's time to start writing those letters again, folks. These are just the latest six or so crimes. Let's not forget the lying us into a war of occupation in Iraq; the million or so Iraqis killed by the invasion and subsequent violence; the disappearance of billions of dollars in cash, armaments, and no-bid "reconstruction" contracts that never happened; the inferior equipment handed off to the troops fighting this useless "war"; the criminal neglect of the victims of Hurricane Katrina; the illegal and unwarranted spying on the people in violation of the Fourth Amendment; and various other attempts to destroy the Constitution.

And all for what? A load of crap, is what, according to Raw Story's report on a retired FBI agent who reviewed the case file of the tortured detainees. A snippet:

Coleman and others in the FBI believed Abu Zubaida had mental problems and was little more than a lackey within al Qaeda who claimed to know more than he really did about the terror organization.

"They all knew he was crazy, and they knew he was always on the damn phone," Coleman said, referring to al-Qaeda operatives. "You think they're going to tell him anything?"

Sheesh. Any kid who's beaten up other kids or been beaten up on knows quite well: when you're on the receiving end of some severe pain, you'll say anything to make it stop.

For anyone who doesn't believe waterboarding is torture, there's a very simple test. Find a neutral third party. Not your mother or spouse, who can't bear to see you suffer, but someone who doesn't particularly like or hate you. Allow them to demonstrate waterboarding on you. After several such experiments, you will speak with authority on the nature of waterboarding. Assuming, of course, that you survive without serious physical, mental, or emotional damage.

Stumble It!

Politics: No More Rendition

Today the FISA bill; now an end to "rendition." Okay, they haven't ended the Iraq debacle yet, but damn, teh Congresscritters deserve some lub for these two bills.

Raw Story reports that the House apparently snuck a provision into the $50 billion Iraq funding bill that

... would effectively end CIA renditions, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.

[...]

The Iraq funding measure revises the Army Field Manual to prohibit torture and abuse, including waterboarding, and authorizes an array of specific interrogation tactics. It specifically states that CIA operatives must adhere to these rules as well.

So even though the two Senate slimebuckets, Chuck Schumer and Dianne Feinstein, voted to let "Waterboarding May Be Torture But You'll Never Get Me To Admit It" Mukasey be confirmed as the next attorney-general, the Democrats have found a way to make his appointment somewhat less toxic.

It's all good, folks. And if we keep their feet to the fire, keep working on the issues, it can only get better.

Stumble It!

Politics: Bernie Sanders Speaks For The People

I've always had a (platonic, political) crush on Senator Bernie Sanders. Anyone who is an independent - truly independent, not a political whore like Joe LIEberwhore - has my admiration. It takes no small measure of guts to stand up to the gutless whores of congress, the sleazy politicians who keep asking for our money, our boots on the ground, our votes, but not our opinions. Who do nothing to help us out of the mess that they keep creating for us, with their bankruptcy bills that give banks and corporations everything and the consumer nothing. Their military funding bills that keep prolonging the war in Iraq. Their FISA bills that give immunity to the telecoms who spied on everything we wrote, said, and thought, retroactively, but not an ounce of relief for those of us shamelessly spied on.

Senator Sanders speaks for we, the people, dammit. Listen to what he has to say:

"For the last six years," says Sanders, "it is clear that we have had a president that does not understand what the Constitution of the United States is about. What this president believes, essentially, is that he can do anything he wants, at any time, against anybody, in the name of fighting terrorism. And he happens to believe that the "war on terrorism" is unending; it's going to go on indefinitely. And I think it is very important that we have an Attorney General who can explain the Constitution to a President who clearly does not understand it.

Unfortunately, Mr. Mukasey is not that person."

Adds Sanders, "We have the right to demand an Attorney General who supports strongly the Constitution and is prepared to tell the President of the United States when he is acting against the Constitution."

You hear that, Dianne Feinstein? You hear that Chuck Schumer? You two, along with a bunch of Bush dogs, voted to confirm that sleazebag Mukasey as the attorney-general of the country. All of you ought to be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves. All you Republicans who voted for someone whose sole aim and purpose in life appears to be ensuring that those who commit high crimes and misdemeanors against this nation will never be held to account. Those who commit war crimes to benefit their wealthy friends will never face a trial for their criminal acts.

Make no mistake about it. The people will hold you to account if you do not hold these villains to account. We will not lose sight of our aims. We know that the country cannot afford four more years of Shrub or Giuliani or Romney or Huckabee or McCain. We know that. We know that we must get rid of the Bush dogs and the traitors. But the day of reckoning will come, if not today, if not next year, it will still come.

Stumble It!

Politics: Mukasey Confirmed

Senator Harkin
While Tom Harkin publicly rails against the confirmation of Mukasey as attorney-general, the four Democratic Presidential candidates who *can* do something about Mukasey - like ensuring the louse does not get confirmed - do squat.

Harkin said, according to a report in Raw Story:

"According to the last attorney general (Bush) was king, and maybe this one believes the same thing, he can do whatever he wants to," Harkin continued. "But even in 1215, the King of England was held to the standard of habeas corpus. I guess we want to turn the clock back to before the Magna Carta."

Raw Story has the video, for those who prefer to believe their own eyes and ears.

But Senator Harkin, why didn't you get on the phone and call Obama, Clinton, McCain, and others who have publicly spoken against the confirmation of Mukasey? Why didn't you ask them to show up and filibuster if necessary to keep Mukasey out?

According to Time Magazine,

Not voting were Democratic presidential candidates Joe Biden of Delaware, Hillary Clinton of New York, Chris Dodd of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois. All four had said they opposed Mukasey's nomination.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain of Arizona also was absent, ... .

Republicans Lamar Alexander and John Cornyn were absent, but all other Republicans voted for Mukasey. Remember that if you have the slightest inkling of a conscience or respect for human rights or antipathy to torture.

These Democrats also voted for Mukasey:

Besides Schumer and Feinstein, Democrats voting to confirm Mukasey were: Sens. Evan Bayh of Indiana, Tom Carper of Delaware, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Of the Senate's two independents, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut voted for confirmation and Bernie Sanders of Vermont voted against.

Of course the LIEberwhore voted for Mukasey. He thinks that torture is something that is only done to Jews or white people. Everybody else can just join him in gobbling the Chimperor's knob.

Bunch of pathetic, spineless, hateful bastards.

Stumble It!

Senator Kennedy's Opposition Speech to the Mukasey Nomination: What part of waterboarding isn't torture?

I have a love-hate relationship with Senator Edward Kennedy and his whole clan. On the one hand, all that privilege which lets some of them get away with ... all kinds of things. On the other, this man often stands up and says the most wonderful things. And I sit there listening and thinking, "I couldn't have said it better meself."

This was one of those speeches. They played it on Democracy Now! this morning. I applauded the man.

I think it's such an important speech that I'm posting it in its entirety right here.

KENNEDY IN OPPOSITION TO THE MUKASEY NOMINATION
United States Senate Judiciary Committee Executive Session
November 6, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

(As Prepared for Delivery)

The Department of Justice is in dire need of new leadership to guide our nation back to its constitutional moorings. Under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, the Department lost its way as a genuine force for justice. It too often served as a rubber stamp for the White House and as a facilitator and enforcer of political objectives rather than the rule of law. After a period of such tarnished leadership in the Department, we need a clear, decisive and straightforward Attorney General who is not afraid to stand up for the constitution and the rule of law – even if it means disagreeing with the President of the United States.

I had hoped that Judge Mukasey could be that person. He is certainly intelligent and has demonstrated admirable dedication to public service. As a federal judge for almost 19 years, he was by all accounts fair and conscientious in the courtroom and even showed admirable independence at times. But, after reviewing and re-reviewing Judge Mukasey’s answers to questions from members of this Committee, I have concluded that he is not the right person to lead the Justice Department at this crucial time in our history.

We need a leader who will inspire confidence in the rule of law. We need a leader who is unafraid to speak truth to power. We need a leader who is worthy of the trust we place in our Attorney General to support and defend the Constitution of the United States. Michael Mukasey regrettably is not that leader.

Like many of my colleagues and many American citizens, I am deeply troubled by Judge Mukasey’s evasive answers about the legality of certain techniques of torture. While the nominee acknowledges that torture is unconstitutional, he has repeatedly refused to acknowledge that the controlled drowning of a prisoner – waterboarding -- rises to the level of torture. What is the big mystery here? Over and over again, civilian and military tribunals have found waterboarding to be an unacceptable act of torture.

Malcolm Nance, a former Master Instructor and Chief of Training at the US Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School, says that, as part of SEAL training, he personally led, witnessed and supervised training to resist waterboarding for hundreds of people. He describes the procedure this way:

Waterboarding is a controlled drowning. . . It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning. . . .

Waterboarding is slow motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of black out and expiration – usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch and if it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia. When done right it is controlled death.

According to ABC News, former intelligence officers and supervisors admitted in 2005 that the CIA used waterboarding – in fact the Vice President confirmed its use – and the intelligence officers and supervisors described waterboarding this way:

The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

But Judge Mukasey cannot say to this Committee that waterboarding is torture? He calls it repugnant, and indeed it is. But he refuses to condemn it as unlawful. And then, in perhaps the most stunning and hollow promise reportedly made by a nominee for Attorney General in my 45 years in the Senate, we are told that Judge Mukasey agreed to enforce a ban against waterboarding if Congress specifically passes one. We are supposed to find comfort in the representations by a nominee to be the highest law enforcement officer in the country that he will in fact enforce the laws that we pass in the future? Can our standards really have sunk so low? Enforcing the law is the job of the Attorney General. It’s a prerequisite – not a virtue that enhances a nominee’s qualifications.

Make no mistake about it. Waterboarding is already illegal under United States law. It is illegal under the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit “outrages upon personal dignity,” including cruel, humiliating, and degrading treatment. It is illegal under the Torture Act, which prohibits acts “specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering.” It is illegal under the Detainee Treatment act, which prohibits “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.” And it violates the Constitution.

The nation’s top military lawyers and legal experts across the political spectrum have condemned waterboarding as torture. After World War II, the United States even prosecuted Japanese officers for engaging in waterboarding. What more does this nominee need to enforce existing laws?

It is the job of the Attorney General to enforce our Constitution and laws. The Attorney General must have the legal and moral judgment to know when an activity rises to the level of a violation of our Constitution, treaties or statutes. But this nominee wants to outsource his job to Congress. That passing of the buck is completely unacceptable by a nominee who wants to be the highest justice official in our great country. This nominee has failed to demonstrate that he will be the clear, decisive and straightforward leader that the Department of Justice so desperately needs.

For all these reasons, I oppose this nomination. `After six long years of reckless disregard for the rule of law by this Administration, we cannot afford to take our chances on the judgment of an Attorney General who either does not know torture when he sees it, or is willing to look the other way to suit the President.

Stumble It!